Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Henry Young, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/henry-young-movant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-13472
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13472
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Henry+Young%2C+Movant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Henry Young, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  73379
Handdown Date:  10/27/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. James R. Hartenbach
Counsel for Appellant:  Dave Hemingway
Counsel for Respondent:  Breck Burgess
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Hoff, P.J., Gaertner and Rhodes Russell, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER 
Henry Young (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 
without an evidentiary hearing.  Movant argues the trial court erred in denying him relief under Rule 24.035, without an 
evidentiary hearing, because his trial counsel failed to:  (1) pursue his admission into drug treatment as an alternative to 
prison; and (2) inform him of the minimum term statute requiring that he serve 80 percent of his prison sentence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to 
be without merit.  The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.  Rule 24.035(k).  An extended 
opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.  Judgment affirmed 
pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).    
Separate Opinion:
None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.